Chap. XT. ANTIENT METAPHYSICS. r§c 



CHAP. XI. 



^at Plato and Artjlotle differed on the SubjeEl of Ideas ^ proved hj 

 Ph'doponus and by Arijlotlei own ivritings. — The attempt to recon- 

 eUe the two PhHofophers, founded on a mi/reprefentation of their Doc- 

 trines. — Plato s Ideas immaterial fuhfances^ — having afeparate ex- 

 iflence. — Arijlotle fo underjlood them^ and argues againjl them ;— 

 difiked ihe word Idea. — Plat6*s word Idea adopted, but not his 

 DuEirine: — Arifiotlt' s the univerfal opinion in modern times.-- Indi- 

 vidual things only exijTtfig according to him; — General Ideas, fuch as 

 Genus and Species, are Creatures of the Human Underfanding. bein^ 

 only different ways of clajjing and arrangmg things, — hiconfflcncy 

 of his Logic with this opinion; — truth and Science can have no fouU" 

 dation in Nature ; — Ideas are mere Entia Rationis, as much as a 

 Hippocentaur. — Arijlotle maintains, that from Generals are derived 

 Particulars : — Incofifjlency of this opinion, with the DoHrine that 

 Generals do not exid. — I/ all things be Inaividuals, they mu/i be 

 immediately derived from tbe frji caufe ;— No progrejfion or Jub- 

 ordination in Nature; — the Individuals of the AuimaL Vz^rcta- 

 hle^ and Mineral Kingdoms, have proreeded immediately from 

 him ;—-'the Ideas of all Particular things are in the Divine Mind- 

 '-—but it can have no General Ideas /uch as we have. — This im- 

 pious, — Or, if the Divine Mind have fuch Ideas, we muH maintain 

 that he colleSis them, as we do, from the particular fenfble objeBs, 

 - — If they were originally in the Divine mind, can we believe that 

 ihey have no exijlence in Nature, entire and undivided ; but that- 

 mly parts of them exiji incorporated with matter, — and thefe pro- 

 ceeding 



